PDA

View Full Version : A change in spending philosophy?



remdog
06-06-2006, 01:27 PM
There are a couple of threads on 'Reds Live' and ORG that alude to the trading of Adam Dunn or Ken Griffy, Jr. Some of the thinking is that their salaries will become or are already prohibitive for the Reds.

Personally, it appears to me that there are signs that the Castellini group is not of the frugal nature that Carl Lindner and associates were. It appears to me that this regime is willing to do some investment spending both in terms of keeping the team competitive now as well as building for the future.

The Reds have shown a willingness this year to eat contracts of underperforming players. They have been willing to take a gamble on DFA'd players (a small cost to be sure but still, a cost) and they've spent some money to sign a 'draft and follow' (Loo). And, in general, their rhetoric seems to indicate that they are more interested in being competitive than in today's bottom line.

How they move forward with draft signings, possible pick-ups if they remain competitive this year and what they do in their first full off-season will provide furture clues but I'm generally heartened by their approach so far.

Thoughts?

Rem

harangatang
06-06-2006, 01:31 PM
I think you also add Felipe Lopez to that list with Dunn and Griffey. Alot of people think that because Lopez is a Boras client that the Reds won't keep him because of the $$$ factor.

Good post.

RedsFanInMD
06-06-2006, 05:28 PM
I also think that Castellini is a smart businessman. He knows that fans come to the ball park to see star players -- and they also come to the park to see a winning team. Should the Reds win this series against the Cards (after having swept the 'Stros), imagine what kind of ticket sales they'll see upon returning home.

Jr's Boy
06-06-2006, 06:38 PM
I do hope if the Reds are in this thing late Cast will give Krivsky the green light to get an additional player.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 06:49 PM
I direct you all to the Reds draft board. If you think Castellini is a lot different than Linder in terms of spending habits, we have all been fooled.

KoryMac5
06-06-2006, 07:06 PM
I direct you all to the Reds draft board. If you think Castellini is a lot different than Linder in terms of spending habits, we have all been fooled.


You can't base what Castellini might spend on this years draft. Every draft in baseball is a wait and see proposition. It will be the same this year also. Castellini is on record as saying he will spend the money if the Reds are contending I for one have seen no reason so far in his early tenure as owner to not believe him.

RedLegSuperStar
06-06-2006, 07:09 PM
I do hope if the Reds are in this thing late Cast will give Krivsky the green light to get an additional player.

I have to agree with you. Cast wants to win now as we all do. but that was his thing from the start of the season.

KronoRed
06-06-2006, 07:22 PM
Castellini is on record as saying he will spend the money if the Reds are contending I for one have seen no reason so far in his early tenure as owner to not believe him.
Spending on the draft should be number 1 for a team like the Reds, saving that cash to overpay on a FA is bad business. IMO

remdog
06-06-2006, 08:00 PM
I direct you all to the Reds draft board. If you think Castellini is a lot different than Linder in terms of spending habits, we have all been fooled.

Is it that you don't like their draft picks or that you think that they are drafting players for their 'signability' (also known as dollars)?

Rem

GoReds
06-06-2006, 08:08 PM
Is it that you don't like their draft picks or that you think that they are drafting players for their 'signability' (also known as dollars)?

Rem

Hey, Rem, I'm with you primarily. I thought the Loo signing was a nice indicator that the FO was going to really invest in the farm system.

But, today's draft - at least the first few rounds - leaves something to be desired. Pitching has been missing from this org for so long, we hardly know how to react when we get a Bronson Arroyo. And then, to go high school OF/college closer with questionable stuff/utility infielder, you have to scratch your head a bit.

I don't doubt that all three will be easy signings. So, that covers both of your points.

I don't like the picks.

Signability as a factor looks very suspicious.

Having said that, I still like the way things HAVE been going. Once we get closer to 31-July, we'll know exactly what cards this new front office has been holding.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 09:33 PM
Is it that you don't like their draft picks or that you think that they are drafting players for their 'signability' (also known as dollars)?

Rem
I guess I would have to say both. I don't like the picks b/c there were more highly rated players on the board. And starting pitching has been lacking in the worst way in recent memory. When was the last time they took a college starting pitcher in the first round? The DBacks are stacked in the minors with hitters and they took a lot of pitchers today. There's a team who knows how to build when you don't have $ like NY. Through the draft. And for whatever reason, this FO must think that Arroyo and Harang are going to pitch like this for the next 10 years.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 09:35 PM
I direct you all to the Reds draft board. If you think Castellini is a lot different than Linder in terms of spending habits, we have all been fooled.

Oh that's hogwash. You don't like the draft so you are being overly dramatic imo.

We have been fooled? You have zero evidence to back that one up.

Miller, Hochever, and Morrow were the three college arms the Reds have been linked to in recent days and they were gone, I'm glad there wasn't a reach.

If you haven't noticed the Reds are almost in worse shape with bats in the minors than arms.

KoryMac5
06-06-2006, 09:42 PM
Spending on the draft should be number 1 for a team like the Reds, saving that cash to overpay on a FA is bad business. IMO


Overpaying for a draft pick is also bad business. I do agree that spending the money on scouting is well worth it.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 09:50 PM
Oh that's hogwash. You don't like the draft so you are being overly dramatic imo.

We have been fooled? You have zero evidence to back that one up.

Miller, Hochever, and Morrow were the three college arms the Reds have been linked to in recent days and they were gone, I'm glad there wasn't a reach.

If you haven't noticed the Reds are almost in worse shape with bats in the minors than arms.
2b: Phillips (24)
SS: Lopez (26)
3b: EdE (23)
LF: Dunn (26)
RF: Kearns (26)

That's why we can focus more on arms than bats. And if we have to be worried about losing these guys soon, them we have more to worry about than just the draft. But I would rather be stocked with arms than bats. It's easier and cheaper to get a 100 RBI man in FA than to find a guy with a 3 ERA.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 09:56 PM
You really think the Reds FO is just skipping these dominant arms for fun? They obviously don't see the talent in this draft. In my view it looks pretty bad after Morrow, Hochever, and Miller.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 10:05 PM
You really think the Reds FO is just skipping these dominant arms for fun? They obviously don't see the talent in this draft. In my view it looks pretty bad after Morrow, Hochever, and Miller.
No, I think they aren't willing to risk the money on pitchers.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 10:07 PM
No, I think they aren't willing to risk the money on pitchers.

Not a really bad idea all together anyway.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 10:14 PM
Not a really bad idea all together anyway.
Yeah, it has been working so far for the Reds.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 10:31 PM
Yeah, it has been working so far for the Reds.

Come again? You act like the Reds have avoided pitching in the first round recently, you couldn't be more wrong.

How is a philosophy that hasn't been tried, not working? Weird if you ask me.

MaineRed
06-06-2006, 10:40 PM
I guess I would have to say both. I don't like the picks b/c there were more highly rated players on the board.

Would that be the same board that had Todd Coffey going in the 41st round? Or Mike Piazza in the 62nd. Did your board have Paul Wilson number one in 94? Is that who the Reds should have taken if they had the first pick that year?

Your philosophy on where players are ranked seems like something that Marge Schott would have loved. What do we need all these scouts for? All they do is watch games. Just look at that piece of paper on the wall and draft the guy, "rated", the highest.

I certainly hope the FO is doing more than that.

And just for the record, how many of these high rated players have you scouted? Your giving the Reds front office advice, I assume you could tell me a lot about all of these draftees.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 10:47 PM
Would that be the same board that had Todd Coffey going in the 41st round? Or Mike Piazza in the 62nd. Did your board have Paul Wilson number one in 94? Is that who the Reds should have taken if they had the first pick that year?

Your philosophy on where players are ranked seems like something that Marge Schott would have loved. What do we need all these scouts for? All they do is watch games. Just look at that piece of paper on the wall and draft the guy, "rated", the highest.

I certainly hope the FO is doing more than that.

And just for the record, how many of these high rated players have you scouted? Your giving the Reds front office advice, I assume you could tell me a lot about all of these draftees.
Do you like the Reds 2006 draft?

I'm not a scout, but when there are, according to MOST scouts, more talented and expensive players on the board and the Reds pass them, I am going to guess that it didn't have much to do with scouting. I'll take a HS starter ranked 19th by BA over a college reliever with an ERA over 4 and a WHIP over 1.50 any day. And in 5 years, when the Reds team ERA is over 5, we can just cry about how bad the pitching is.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 10:59 PM
Come again? You act like the Reds have avoided pitching in the first round recently, you couldn't be more wrong.

How is a philosophy that hasn't been tried, not working? Weird if you ask me.
They have avoided top college pitchers like the plague. Over the past 4 drafts (2002-2005), they have taken 3 of the 12 picks in rounds 1, 2 and 3 as college pitchers, 2 of which are starters. If you want to include this year, they are at 4 of 16 and still only 2 starters.

One was Zach Ward from Gardner Webb.
One was Ryan Wagner from U of Houston.
One was Thomas Pauly from Princeton.

Do you think that this has anything to do with the historical lack of pitching for this franchise? I should go back more, but I think this says enough. Especially since these are the years where the pitching has really been pathetic.

And why do you think they won't pick college starting pitchers? $$$$$$$$$$

MaineRed
06-06-2006, 11:05 PM
Who is Baseball America other than a bunch of people not smart or talented enough to get actual jobs in baseball. Where did Baseball America have Piazza ranked when he went in the 62nd round as a favor?

I don't know jack about the 19th ranked HS pitcher or the college reliever with the ERA over 4 and based on what you said, neither do you. I'm guessing the Red scouts probably do know a thing or two about these players. This was WK first draft. Who the heck am I to grade him the day it happened?

I'll trust that the Reds are drafting guys they want, not guys they can afford until it is proven otherwise. What Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien did in the past should not cloud anyone's judgement. Everyone deserves to be judged on their own merits, not someone else's. Its only fair.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 11:17 PM
They have avoided top college pitchers like the plague. Over the past 4 drafts (2002-2005), they have taken 3 of the 12 picks in rounds 1, 2 and 3 as college pitchers, 2 of which are starters. If you want to include this year, they are at 4 of 16 and still only 2 starters.

One was Zach Ward from Gardner Webb.
One was Ryan Wagner from U of Houston.
One was Thomas Pauly from Princeton.

Do you think that this has anything to do with the historical lack of pitching for this franchise? I should go back more, but I think this says enough. Especially since these are the years where the pitching has really been pathetic.

And why do you think they won't pick college starting pitchers? $$$$$$$$$$

No. They passed up Kazmir because of $$$ and he was a high school pitcher. You are trying to argue a philosophy when there wasn't one.

Argue about their being inept all you want, but saying they avoid college pitchers today because of $$ makes no sense. Judge this FO on today, not on Carl Lindner.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 11:19 PM
Who is Baseball America other than a bunch of people not smart or talented enough to get actual jobs in baseball. Where did Baseball America have Piazza ranked when he went in the 62nd round as a favor?

I don't know jack about the 19th ranked HS pitcher or the college reliever with the ERA over 4 and based on what you said, neither do you. I'm guessing the Red scouts probably do know a thing or two about these players. This was WK first draft. Who the heck am I to grade him the day it happened?

I'll trust that the Reds are drafting guys they want, not guys they can afford until it is proven otherwise. What Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien did in the past should not cloud anyone's judgement. Everyone deserves to be judged on their own merits, not someone else's. Its only fair.
Maybe if there was steroid testing then Piazza wouldn't have been such a steal. ;)

So you didn't answer my question...are you happy with the draft today? Are you happy that our historical biggest black hole was mainly filled by a college reliever with an ERA over 4? Are you happy that we got an OF over some of the better college starting pitchers in the nation, which was the draft's biggest strength?

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 11:20 PM
No. They passed up Kazmir because of $$$ and he was a high school pitcher. You are trying to argue a philosophy when there wasn't one.

Argue about their being inept all you want, but saying they avoid college pitchers today because of $$ makes no sense. Judge this FO on today, not on Carl Lindner.
When the signings begin and we see the $ paid out in the top few rounds, I will be shocked if the Reds weren't one of the lowest paying teams in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

dougdirt
06-06-2006, 11:23 PM
Here is all I can hope for...The Reds drafted cheap this year in hopes that next year they have a much better draft class and can load up and spend the money on kids actually worth the money.... of course, I dont think the Reds have a premiere pick next year like they did this year...
As for this years draft, it was horrible. I dont care if its today, tomorrow or 5 years from now....the talent in this draft is bad, and we over drafted it hardcore.

MaineRed
06-06-2006, 11:32 PM
I did answer your question. Try re-reading my post.

You guys that think the top 50 players in this draft were ranked 1-50 before the draft started are the folks who need the history lesson. If Jim Bowden and Carl Lindner were still running the show what they did in the past might be worth mentioning.

I don't know HS and college players but I know Grande was gushing about the kid picked first by the Reds, saying the Reds figured he would be gone by the time they drafted. Do we need a CF? According to every other thread I read, we should start looking for one because the all century player currently carrying the team is a liability.

Nugget
06-06-2006, 11:34 PM
FWIW I don't mind the draft. They all appear to be breathing. I don't think you can call the draft a disaster when none of the players have signed, none of them have played a day of professional ball and not all the rounds have been completed.

MaineRed
06-06-2006, 11:42 PM
Agreed Nugget. Maybe let these guys actually pick up a wooden bat before crying that they don't belong.

Stats from college or high school don't tell the entire story. Maybe the guy with the ERA over 4 has great stuff but needs some solid coaching. Who knows? Maybe he is Mario Soto's change-up from being Mariano Rivera. If you haven't seen him pitch, don't tell me what a bad pick it was.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 11:45 PM
I did answer your question. Try re-reading my post.

You guys that think the top 50 players in this draft were ranked 1-50 before the draft started are the folks who need the history lesson. If Jim Bowden and Carl Lindner were still running the show what they did in the past might be worth mentioning.

I don't know HS and college players but I know Grande was gushing about the kid picked first by the Reds, saying the Reds figured he would be gone by the time they drafted. Do we need a CF? According to every other thread I read, we should start looking for one because the all century player currently carrying the team is a liability.

OK, let's get back to the subject at hand. My belief is that the Reds overdrafted some players because of money concerns. Typically college pitchers cost the most in a draft, especially the top ones.

Let's look at it this way. The Reds have had, to put it kindly, some of the worst starting pitching in baseball over the last few years. I completely respect the fact that Wayne won't be signing top FA pitchers every year b/c of affordability. But why do they continually refuse to address it at the top of their draft? In the past 5 drafts, between the 1-3 rounds they have drafted 2 college SPs. So if they will not address it in the draft and cannot address it through FA, then we have to come to the conclusion that unless we get a few HS pitchers through the ranks in one piece or catch a few diamonds in the rough, this team will never have a good rotation. And my belief is b/c it is about money. HS pitchers are cheaper than college pitchers. And 2 college starting pitchers in the last 5 drafts between rounds 1-3 says a lot.

Oh, and BTW, if you think the Stubbs pick was all about talent and nothing about money, think again.

Talking to reporters on a conference call from Austin, Stubbs said he expected to sign quickly.

"The way we've been talking recently, we pretty much came to an agreement that I wouldn't be difficult to sign if I was drafted," he said. "I'm not sure how quick the actually signing will take place. When it comes to negotiations, I'm think all that's pretty much ironed out and I won't be a problem to sign at all."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060606&content_id=1491219&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Cedric
06-06-2006, 11:48 PM
OK, let's get back to the subject at hand. My belief is that the Reds overdrafted some players because of money concerns. Typically college pitchers cost the most in a draft, especially the top ones.

Let's look at it this way. The Reds have had, to put it kindly, some of the worst starting pitching in baseball over the last few years. I completely respect the fact that Wayne won't be signing top FA pitchers every year b/c of affordability. But why do they continually refuse to address it at the top of their draft? In the past 5 drafts, between the 1-3 rounds they have drafted 2 college SPs. So if they will not address it in the draft and cannot address it through FA, then we have to come to the conclusion that unless we get a few HS pitchers through the ranks in one piece or catch a few diamonds in the rough, this team will never have a good rotation. And my belief is b/c it is about money. HS pitchers are cheaper than college pitchers. And 2 college starting pitchers in the last 5 drafts between rounds 1-3 says a lot.

Oh, and BTW, if you think the Stubbs pick was all about talent and nothing about money, think again.

Talking to reporters on a conference call from Austin, Stubbs said he expected to sign quickly.

"The way we've been talking recently, we pretty much came to an agreement that I wouldn't be difficult to sign if I was drafted," he said. "I'm not sure how quick the actually signing will take place. When it comes to negotiations, I'm think all that's pretty much ironed out and I won't be a problem to sign at all."

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060606&content_id=1491219&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

You take things that show no correlation and somehow fudge them into whatever belief you have. How does Stubbs saying that mean that's the reason we passed over better talent for him? You don't have anything to suggest that.
Just because Stubbs realized negotiations were going well, doesn't mean that he bargained himself into our spot. The Reds seemed to have wanted Stubbs for a long while. Blame them for that if you want.
What if Stubbs had said "The way we've been talking recently led me to believe the Reds are willing to offer fair money and I will sign easily."

You also keep talking about pitching and you act like the FO doesn't realize the importance of it. Of course they do. Does that mean they pass up premium talent in their eyes for an overrated college pitcher?
Right now you are just reaching with assumptions based on no facts.

You can hate this draft all you want, but arguing at this point that $$ played a big role is just not factual.

edabbs44
06-06-2006, 11:53 PM
You take things that show no correlation and somehow fudge them into whatever belief you have. How does Stubbs saying that mean that's the reason we passed over better talent for him? You don't have anything to suggest that.
Just because Stubbs realized negotiations were going well, doesn't mean that he bargained himself into our spot. The Reds seemed to have wanted Stubbs for a long while. Blame them for that if you want.

You also keep talking about pitching and you act like the FO doesn't realize the importance of it. Of course they do. Does that mean they pass up premium talent in their eyes for an overrated college pitcher?
Right now you are just reaching with assumptions based on no facts.

You can hate this draft all you want, but arguing at this point that $$ played a big role is just not factual.

He said that they came to an agreement that he wouldn't be difficult to sign if they drafted him. I would assume those discussions included some dialogue related to bonus money. And if Stubbs told them he would want $4 million to sign, I bet he wouldn't have been drafted. And that's where money comes into play.

But the Stubbs pick worries me the least. Rounds 2 and 3 are a lot worse.

Cedric
06-06-2006, 11:54 PM
He said that they came to an agreement that he wouldn't be difficult to sign if they drafted him. I would assume those discussions included some dialogue related to bonus money. And if Stubbs told them he would want $4 million to sign, I bet he wouldn't have been drafted. And that's where money comes into play.

But the Stubbs pick worries me the least. Rounds 2 and 3 are a lot worse.

Of course if Stubbs asked for crazy money they would say no. Who the hell wouldn't?

dougdirt
06-07-2006, 12:09 AM
Its not even the fact that the Reds took Stubbs. He argueably was the best player on the board. However, the guys they took after Stubbs, werent. There is no way. They were taken because they will sign, and sign cheaper than anyone drafted around them.

traderumor
06-07-2006, 12:25 AM
Its not even the fact that the Reds took Stubbs. He argueably was the best player on the board. However, the guys they took after Stubbs, werent. There is no way. They were taken because they will sign, and sign cheaper than anyone drafted around them.Conjecture 101. I think you're upset because they took guys whose name you weren't familiar with and that they didn't have notes on mlb.com about some of them.

dougdirt
06-07-2006, 12:39 AM
TR, I have to disagree with you. I did enough research on the guys and their numbers and watching video on some to see that they overdrafted guys. I did know the names up to a point, I also knew the names available of players they passed up on.

Nugget
06-07-2006, 12:39 AM
TR to track this discussion you have to go to a number of the boards - there's a similar thread on Down on the Farm. I think it is both recognition and the fact that they are not starting pitchers.

I have no problem with the REDS not taking starting pitchers as Krivs has stated that their only criteria for selecting players was the best possible player available.

NewEraReds
06-07-2006, 12:53 AM
There are a couple of threads on 'Reds Live' and ORG that alude to the trading of Adam Dunn or Ken Griffy, Jr. Some of the thinking is that their salaries will become or are already prohibitive for the Reds.

Personally, it appears to me that there are signs that the Castellini group is not of the frugal nature that Carl Lindner and associates were. It appears to me that this regime is willing to do some investment spending both in terms of keeping the team competitive now as well as building for the future.

The Reds have shown a willingness this year to eat contracts of underperforming players. They have been willing to take a gamble on DFA'd players (a small cost to be sure but still, a cost) and they've spent some money to sign a 'draft and follow' (Loo). And, in general, their rhetoric seems to indicate that they are more interested in being competitive than in today's bottom line.

How they move forward with draft signings, possible pick-ups if they remain competitive this year and what they do in their first full off-season will provide furture clues but I'm generally heartened by their approach so far.

Thoughts?

Rem
not to make this a dunn debate thread, but i think its pretty clear the emphasis krivsky puts on def and speed, and pitching. so with that said, i still feel dunn will be moved at some point in the next year or 2

NewEraReds
06-07-2006, 01:06 AM
He said that they came to an agreement that he wouldn't be difficult to sign if they drafted him. I would assume those discussions included some dialogue related to bonus money. And if Stubbs told them he would want $4 million to sign, I bet he wouldn't have been drafted. And that's where money comes into play.

But the Stubbs pick worries me the least. Rounds 2 and 3 are a lot worse.
rounds 2 and 3 on paper are about as bad as you can do

remdog
06-07-2006, 02:02 AM
not to make this a dunn debate thread, but i think its pretty clear the emphasis krivsky puts on def and speed, and pitching. so with that said, i still feel dunn will be moved at some point in the next year or 2

You could be correct, NewEra. And, if the Reds move Dunn for the reasons you mentioned as opposed to his cost then that would still fit with the premis that this groups' spending philosophy is different from the last ownership group.

If they are moving players in order to make the team better and not simply to make the team cheaper then I'm OK with that approach in general. (Although I reserve the right to b**** and moan if the player happens to be one of my personal favorites. ;) )

Rem

KronoRed
06-07-2006, 02:08 AM
not to make this a dunn debate thread, but i think its pretty clear the emphasis krivsky puts on def and speed, and pitching. so with that said, i still feel dunn will be moved at some point in the next year or 2
I dunno about that, I would think that if Krivsky really was that concerned with D he'd have stuck with moving Dunn out of LF to 1st

jimbo
06-07-2006, 02:49 AM
not to make this a dunn debate thread, but i think its pretty clear the emphasis krivsky puts on def and speed, and pitching. so with that said, i still feel dunn will be moved at some point in the next year or 2

You make a good point, but Krivsky and BobC knew what they were getting when they signed Dunn to his contract. If they did not see Dunn being a part of the future here, why lock him up?

dougdirt
06-07-2006, 02:57 AM
You make a good point, but Krivsky and BobC knew what they were getting when they signed Dunn to his contract. If they did not see Dunn being a part of the future here, why lock him up?
Two years on a contract does look better than none:)

tripleaaaron
06-07-2006, 03:25 AM
okay need an example other than Piazza to disprove Baseball America:
The called Albert Pujols- the antithesis of the prodigal player. Slow player w/ a slow bat to boot.
Where were they on that one? The cardinals scouts saw something in him and selected him in the 13th round, 402overall. There are more qualities than just good overall skills, such as work ethic and determination. Something quoted in many of these players the reds selected scouting sheets. Not all high priced highly ranked prospects turn out to be any more than that. J.D Drew for example has more talent than anyone and you can't blame anyone for taking him so high, but he lacks one main thing, determination to do any better than take his salary to the bank.

traderumor
06-07-2006, 10:40 AM
TR, I have to disagree with you. I did enough research on the guys and their numbers and watching video on some to see that they overdrafted guys. I did know the names up to a point, I also knew the names available of players they passed up on.Doug, with all due respect, someone makes claims like yours every year. But, to make claims of "overdrafting," there has to be some form of consensus about a player's slot. We have 30 teams with different goals and different types of players that they are looking for to succeed in their organization.

With that, even with a team taking "best player available" as Buckley claims they did, that is a subjective term that may mean something totally different to the Reds scouting department than it means to you, an individual fan who has looked at some numbers and watched video. So, it comes down to you thinking that whatever basis you used to determine someone's draft position was superior to the Reds. Good luck proving that one.

edabbs44
06-07-2006, 01:25 PM
okay need an example other than Piazza to disprove Baseball America:
The called Albert Pujols- the antithesis of the prodigal player. Slow player w/ a slow bat to boot.
Where were they on that one? The cardinals scouts saw something in him and selected him in the 13th round, 402overall. There are more qualities than just good overall skills, such as work ethic and determination. Something quoted in many of these players the reds selected scouting sheets. Not all high priced highly ranked prospects turn out to be any more than that. J.D Drew for example has more talent than anyone and you can't blame anyone for taking him so high, but he lacks one main thing, determination to do any better than take his salary to the bank.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Baseball America is pretty close to most draft boards for teams. They were obviously wrong on Pujols, but 30 teams passed on him for 12 rounds as well. So obviously the draft boards for all 30 teams were just as bad as BA's.

tripleaaaron
06-07-2006, 03:22 PM
The point is, scouts see different things in players, some look for that high ceiling, some just draft based on needs, others look at intangibles, the point I was trying to make is that as fans we can't just look at who we drafted where and compare them to their overall ranking on BA or other scouting services, we picked these players for reasons, something our scouts saw, and in a terribly week draft class, we apparently picked the players we thought were the best for the future of our team, so wait a year or 3 and then pass judgement, the scouting services are not always correct

REDREAD
06-07-2006, 06:17 PM
I'll take a HS starter ranked 19th by BA over a college reliever with an ERA over 4 and a WHIP over 1.50 any day. And in 5 years, when the Reds team ERA is over 5, we can just cry about how bad the pitching is.

Well, time will tell. The guy running the Reds draft said that he liked our #2 pick.. He said our #2 was the one of the best arms in the draft, in their opinion.

Sure, the guy's college stats are not that impressive, but they saw something in that guy. I guess we'll know in a couple of years. I guess I'm saying that Wayne's guys should be given a chance now. If at this time next year, it looks like the high picks have flopped, then I agree we should be a lot more critical of them in 2007.

Perhaps the fact that the Reds' opinion differs from Baseball America means that they really did their homework this year? We can hope so.

I'm also not upset about our #3 pick, because some writer said he projects as a utility guy.. Some writer wrote a horrible review of Wood last year that got the entire board up in arms, and Wood turned out fine (so far).

I'm willing to give Wayne's guys a chance.

REDREAD
06-07-2006, 06:25 PM
Oh, and BTW, if you think the Stubbs pick was all about talent and nothing about money, think again.

[I]Talking to reporters on a conference call from Austin, Stubbs said he expected to sign quickly.

"The way we've been talking recently, we pretty much came to an agreement that I wouldn't be difficult to sign if I was drafted,"

But also note that the first 5 draft picks had prearranged agrreements. Probably more than that. I think that's the new trend in the draft. I wouldn't be surprised if the clubs share their first round picks early to facilitate signing. I mean, if you are the Royals (#1 pick) and you know who you are taking, and have a prearranged deal, why not let the #2 team know. It benefits both clubs. Now #2 can line up his player and team #1 doesn't have to worry about team #2 offering more money in their prenegotiations.

So, my point is, just because Stubbs had a handshake deal about money, it doesn't necessarily mean he's cheap or even easy. I recall Kearns making a statement about being an easy sign, and he held out quite a bit. I even remember Bowden calling him JD Kearns.

I think a lot of these prearranged deals are to avoid those long holdouts which waste the entire first season. IIRC, Howington sat out the entire summer over something like 50k.

remdog
06-07-2006, 06:50 PM
Didn't Kearnes and Broussard have 'hand-shake' deals that if they fell to the Reds in a certain position that they would sign for 'X' amount?

Rem